Snap Inc. v. Katherine K. Vidal, 750 F.Supp.3d 1120

Snap began selling eye‑wearable smart glasses branded SPECTACLES in 2016 and applied to register SPECTACLES (word and stylized) for wearable computer hardware/peripherals and related software.
The USPTO and the TTAB refused registration, finding SPECTACLES generic for smart glasses or, alternatively, descriptive without acquired distinctiveness; Snap sued under 15 U.S.C. § 1071(b) seeking de novo review.
At bench trial the parties stipulated the relevant genus is “smart glasses” (incorporating both visible eyewear form and embedded computer technology); the record included expert reports, surveys, marketing materials, retailer listings, and media usage.
The PTO relied on dictionary definitions, third‑party and competitor uses, media citations, and Teflon surveys to argue genericness; Snap argued the mark is suggestive or, at minimum, descriptive with secondary meaning supported by advertising, sales, media impressions, and surveys.
The court concluded the PTO failed to prove genericness by clear and convincing evidence, found SPECTACLES to be highly descriptive (not suggestive), and found Snap failed to prove secondary meaning by a preponderance.
Remedy: the court remanded the applications to the PTO to permit supplemental registration of SPECTACLES (word and stylized) rather than registration on the principal register.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether SPECTACLES is generic for smart glasses	Snap: not generic for smart glasses; term denotes Snap's product, not the product class	PTO: "spectacles" is the common name for eyewear and thus generic for smart glasses	Court: PTO did not prove genericness; "spectacles" is descriptive of the eyewear form, not the generic name of smart glasses
Whether SPECTACLES is inherently distinctive (suggestive)	Snap: mark is suggestive and therefore inherently registrable	PTO: mark is descriptive (if not generic) and not inherently distinctive	Court: mark is highly descriptive, not suggestive; no inherent distinctiveness
Whether SPECTACLES has acquired secondary meaning	Snap: advertising, sales, media, and use establish secondary meaning	PTO: consumer recognition is low; competitor/media use shows descriptive usage; Snap's evidence insufficient given high descriptiveness	Court: Snap failed to carry preponderance burden to show secondary meaning
Appropriate registration outcome/remedy	Snap: principal‑register registration warranted	PTO: refuse principal registration	Court: remand for PTO action to allow supplemental registration (not principal register)

Kappos v. Hyatt, 566 U.S. 431 (2012) (de novo review required under 15 U.S.C. § 1071(b))
B & B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Indus., Inc., 575 U.S. 138 (2015) (administrative findings may be accorded weight but de novo review may be required)
Booking.com B.V. v. United States Patent & Trademark Office, 591 U.S. 549 (2020) (generic term names a class of goods or services; consumer perception governs primary significance)
Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc., 505 U.S. 763 (1992) (distinctiveness continuum; inherent distinctiveness of trade dress/marks)
Park 'N Fly, Inc. v. Dollar Park & Fly, Inc., 469 U.S. 189 (1985) (generic names cannot function as trademarks)
In re Cordua Restaurants, Inc., 823 F.3d 594 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (term generic if public understands it to refer to a key aspect of claimed goods/services; discussed limits of "key aspect" use)
Zobmondo Ent., LLC v. Falls Media, LLC, 602 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir. 2010) (focus on consumer perception when assessing distinctiveness)
Filipino Yellow Pages, Inc. v. Asian Journal Publ’ns, Inc., 198 F.3d 1143 (9th Cir. 1999) (secondary meaning and evidentiary standards for highly descriptive marks)
In re La. Fish Fry Prods., Ltd., 797 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (burden to prove acquired distinctiveness applies to registration proceedings)
Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Prods. Co., 514 U.S. 159 (1995) (trademark law protects source‑identifying features; descriptive vs. distinctive analysis)